P. Mandal, J. - (1.) This application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the order dated September 2, 2008 passed by the learned First Additional Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Alipore and the order dated June 29, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 91 of 2006.
(2.) The plaintiff initially filed the suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and injunction against the defendant Nos. 1 to 3. Subsequently, the defendant No. 4 was added by an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff prayed for cancellation of a certain deed on the basis of which the defendant No. 4 claimed the suit property and for that reason, the plaintiff has also prayed for declaration for cancellation of a deed by the proposed amendment. That application for amendment of the plaint was considered and allowed and thereafter the plaintiff filed the amended plaint. But it was noticed that the amended plaint was not correct and it was mistyped. That is why, it was not accepted. Thereafter, the defendants filed an application under Order 6 Rule 18 of the C.P.C. when the plaintiff filed a corrected amended plaint. That application under Order 6 Rule 18 of the C.P.C. filed by the defendants was allowed and consequently, the amended plaint was not accepted. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff filed another application for amendment of the plaint. But that application was rejected on the ground that the second application for amendment on the selfsame matter is barred by the principles of res judicata. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the plaintiff/petitioner has come up with this application.
(3.) Now, the point for consideration is whether the impugned order can be sustained.;